Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

University  of  Illinois  Library 


i  ,  t      ;    r, 


uuil    ■'      ,:■; 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


http://www.archive.org/details/measuringteachin25monr 


*z> 


r  2>S~  *****?  fc£JfT 


UNIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS    BULLETIN 

Issued  Weekly 
Vol.  XXI  January  28,  1924  No.  22 

[Entered  as  second-class  matter  December  11,  1912,  at  the  post  office  at  Urbana,  Illinois,  under  the 
Act  of  August  24,  1912.  Acceptance  for  mailing  at  the  special  rate  of  postage  provided  for  in 
section  1103,  Act  of  October  3,  1917,  authorized  July  31,   1918.] 


EDUCATIONAL  RESEARCH  CIRCULAR  NO.  25 


BUREAU  OF  EDUCATIONAL  RESEARCH 
COLLEGE  OF  EDUCATION 

MEASURING  TEACHING  EFFICIENCY 

By 

Walter  S.  Monroe 
Director,  Bureau  of  Educational  Research 

and 

John  A.  Clark 
Assistant,  Bureau  of  Educational  Research 


fHc 


;z./ 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

URBANA 


3  70 
^\  zs-=*37 

Measuring  Teaching  Efficiency 

Until  recently  teachers  were  rated  by  what  has  been  called  the 
"general  impression  method."  Under  this  method  the  judgments  of 
a  supervisor  were  controlled  neither  by  an  outline  nor  by  other  speci- 
fications. Obviously  different  supervisors  would  vary  widely  in  the 
judgments  expressed  with  references  to  the  same  teacher.  Further- 
more, a  given  supervisor  was  likely  to  judge  different  teachers  on  dif- 
ferent bases  or  to  be  influenced  by  some  minor  detail  either  favorable 
or  unfavorable.  For  obvious  reasons  this  method  of  measuring  the 
efficiency  of  individual  teachers  is  unsatisfactory.  Beginning  about 
1910,  a  number  of  investigators  attempted  to  devise  procedures  that 
would  yield  measurements  of  teaching  efficiency  which  had  a  definite 
meaning  and  were  more  accurate  than  could  be  obtained  by  the 
"general  impression  method."  The  methods  which  have  been  pro- 
posed will  be  considered  under  the  following  items: 

I.  Score  cards. 

II.  Man-to-man  comparison  scale. 

III.  Measurement  of  teaching  efficiency  by  means  of  standard- 
ized tests. 

I.  MEASUREMENT  OF  TEACHING  EFFICIENCY  BY 
MEANS  OF  SCORE  CARDS 

Beginning  of  teacher  score  cards.  The  earliest  investigations, 
among  which  may  be  listed  the  work  of  Book  (1905),  Kratz  (1907), 
Ruediger  and  Strayer  (1910),  Boyce  (1912),  Littler  (1914)  and 
Moses  (1914),  were  attempts  to  analyze  teaching  efficiency  and  to 
identify  the  essential  traits  or  characteristics  of  successful  teachers. 
The  efforts  of  these  early  investigators  have  not  met  with  complete  ap- 
proval and  a  number  of  more  recent  attempts  to  formulate  a  list  of 
characteristics  which  would  determine  the  essential  traits  of  success- 
ful teachers  have  been  made.  Among  these  may  be  noted  Clapp 
(1915),  Buellesfield  (1915),  Mead  and  Holley  (1916),  Johnston 
(1916),  Osborn  (1920),  and  Knight  (1922). 

Using  the  results  of  the  earlier  studies  as  a  basis,  Elliott  in  1910 
formulated  a  score  card  for  measuring  teaching  efficiency.  This  card 
consisted  of  a  list  of  forty-two  traits  which  were  considered  essential 
to  successful  teaching.    The  teacher  was  judged  with  reference  to 

[3] 

631918 


each  of  these  forty-two  traits.  The  sum  of  these  judgments,  which 
were  to  be  expressed  in  numerical  terms,  was  taken  as  a  measure  of 
the  teacher's  efficiency.  Since  1910  a  number  of  score  cards  have 
been  formulated  by  other  persons.  Although  there  are  many  points 
of  similarity  in  these  scales  they  differ  in  certain  details.  Those  by 
Elliott  (1910),  the  New  York  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  (1915), 
Boyce  (1915),  Landsittel  (1917),  Rugg  (1920),  Connor  (1920), 
Kent  (1920),  Maddock  (1922),  and  Carrigan  (1922),  appear  to  be 
typical  of  the  differences  in  structure. 

Functions  of  score  cards.  Score  cards  for  measuring  teaching 
efficiency  fulfill  two  functions.  They  may  be  used  by  the  superin- 
tendent for  administrative  purposes  such  as  a  basis  for  determining 
reemployment,  promotions  and  salary  increases  or  they  may  serve  as 
a  means  for  improving  the  teachers  in  service.  When  used  for  ad- 
ministrative purposes  the  rating  should  be  made  by  the  superintend- 
ent, the  principal  or  other  supervisory  officials.  When  the  function 
of  the  score  card  is  that  of  teacher  improvement  it  has  been  recom- 
mended that  each  teacher  be  asked  to  rate  himself.  This  process  of 
rating,  however,  is  considered  self-analysis  rather  than  measurement. 
In  some  cases  a  preliminary  rating  has  been  made  both  by  the  prin- 
cipal or  special  supervisor  and  by  the  teacher  and  a  final  rating  given 
by  the  superintendent  after  he  has  compared  the  results  of  the  two 
ratings  and  has  conferred  with  the  individual  teachers  regarding  any 
special  characteristics  of  strength  or  of  weakness. 

Representative  score  cards  described.  1.  Elliott's  Score  Card 
for  Measuring  the  Merits  of  Teachers.  This  score  card  has  two  gen- 
eral divisions:  (I)  Individual  Efficiency,  and  (II)  Directed  Efficiency. 
Under  the  former  there  are  eight  main  headings:  (1)  Physical  Effi- 
ciency, (2)  Moral-Native  Efficiency,  (3)  Administrative  Efficiency, 
(4)  Dynamic  Efficiency,  (5)  Projected  Efficiency,  (6)  Achieved  Effi- 
ciency, and  (7)  Social  Efficiency.  A  number  of  subordinate  traits  are 
also  given.  For  example,  under  Administrative  Efficiency  the  follow- 
ing are  listed:  (1)  Regularity  at  post  of  duty,  (2)  Initiative,  resource- 
fulness, (3)  Promptness  and  accuracy,  (4)  Executive  capacity,  (5) 
Economy  of  time  and  property,  (6)  Cooperation  with  associates  and 
supervisors.  In  the  second  division  there  is  only  one  heading,  Super- 
visory Efficiency. 

2.  Score  card  by  New  York  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research. 

The  score  card  devised  by  the  New  York  Bureau  of  Municipal  Re- 
search (1915)  differs  in  structure  from  that  by  Elliott.   It  appears  to 

[4] 


have  been  designed  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  qualitative  descrip- 
tion of  the  teacher  rather  than  a  numerical  rating.  A  check  mark  is 
to  be  placed  opposite  descriptive  terms  in  order  to  note  their  presence 
or  degree.  Two  sections  of  the  card  are  reproduced  below: 

I.   Personality  of  Teacher  (check  V) 
(a)  Teacher  appears  to  be 

vigorous weak poised nervous 

neat slovenly at  ease embarrassed 


II.  Teaching  Ability  as  shown 

BY 

(check  V) 

(a)   Extent  to  which  teacher's  questions  are 

"c3 

o 
2 

53 

E 

s 

'-5 

V 

n 
o 
Z 

Evidence 

and 
Remarks 

( 1 )  thought-provoking 

(2)  calling  for  facts 

(3)  suggesting  the  answer 

(4)  answered  by  "yes"  or  "no" 

( 5 )  irrelevant 

(6)  not  definite — vague. . 

3.  Rugg's  Scale  for  Rating  Teachers  in  Service.  Rugg's  Rating 
Scale  for  judging  teachers  in  service  was  designed  to  be  used  primar- 
ily by  the  teacher  in  analyzing  and  rating  himself.  Its  structure  is 
unique.  It  consists  of  over  fifty  questions  which  are  grouped  under 
five  heads:  (I)  Skill  in  Teaching;  (II)  Skill  in  the  Mechanics  of 
Managing  a  Class;  (III)  Team  Work  Qualities;  (IV)  Qualities  of 
Growth  and  Keeping  Up-to-Date;  (V)  Personal  and  Social  Qualities; 
and  which  are  to  be  answered  in  terms  of  "low,"  "average,"  or 
"high."  The  questions  under  the  first  heading  are  reproduced. 

To  what  extent — 

Does  he  know  the  subject  matter  of  his  own  and  related  fields: 

1.  In  subjects  like  history,  geography,  etc.,  does  he  make  effective  use  of  ma- 
terial outside  the  text  book 

2.  Does  he  relate  lessons  to  material  in  other  fields  and  use  illustrations  outside 
his  own  subject  (e.  g.,  math,  and  science) 

Does  he  select  subject-matter  effectively  for  class  reading  and  discussion 

Are  his  aims  of  teaching  clearly  defined 

Does  he  give  evidence  of  having: 

1.  Formulated  clearly  his  aims  of  teaching,  as  shown  by  his  written  statement 
of  aims  and  outcomes 

2.  Planned  his  lessons  specifically  to  carry  these  out 

3.  Distinguished  clearly  between  (a)  "formal  skill"  (either  in  manual  or 
academic  subjects),  (b)  "information"  and  (c)  "problem  solving"  as  proper 
outcomes  from  his  class  work 

[5] 


4.  Given  pupils  clear  ideas  of  the  purpose  of  lessons 

Is  he  skillful  in  conducting  the  class  discussion 

a.  Resourcefulness  in  organizing  a  discussion  and  in  "thinking  on  his  feet" 

1.  Is  he  fertile  and  quick  in  taking  advantage  of  pupils'  questions 

2.  Are  his  questions  systematically  planned,  yet  spontaneously  given 

3.  Does  he  express  himself  clearly 

b.  Skill  in  conducting  "drill"  exercises 

1.  Does  he  make  use  of  economical,  "timed,"  drill-devices   (such  as  Cour- 
tis' Practice  Exercises,  etc) 

2.  Does  he  properly  subordinate  drill  to  clear  exposition;  that  is,  keep  a 
proper  balance  between  drill  and  "development" 

c.  Ability  to  "develop"  new  phases  of  the  work 

1.  Are  lessons  well  related  to  previous  ones 

2.  Is  material  "organized" 

3.  Do  lessons  show  the  use  of  material  in  the  solution  of  present  or  future 
problems: 

a.  In  his  subject 

b.  Outside  his  subject 

d.  Ability  to  secure  class  participation  in  the  recitation 

1.  Do  all  pupils  in  the  class  take  part  in  the  discussion 

2.  Do  all  the  pupils  question  each  other  and  conduct  the  class  independ- 
ently of  his  formal  direction 

e.  Skill  in  making  the  assignment 

1.  Was  it  an  attempt  to  teach  pupils  how  to  study  the  lesson 

2.  Was  it  more  than  mere  formal  announcement  of  the  number  of  pages  in 
the  text,  etc 

3.  Are  its  scope  and  purpose  clearly  recognized  by  pupils 

Has  he  insight  into  "how  children  learn" 

1.  Does  he  keep  the  discussion  within  the  pupils'  comprehension 

2.  Does  he  endeavor  to  discover  pupils'  difficulties  by  keeping  records  of  errors 
and  studying  these 

3.  Does  he  adapt  discussion  to  individual  differences  in  pupils 

*t^-  Distinctive  characteristics  of  other  score  cards.  Score  cards  for 
rating  teachers  have  varied  widely  with  reference  to  the  number  of 
traits  upon  which  teachers  are  to  be  rated.  Boyce  included  forty- 
five;  Landsittel  thirty-four;  and  Maddock  reduced  the  number  to 
eight  general  traits.  Carrigan  observed  one  criterion  which  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  recognized  by  other  makers  of  score  cards.  She 
rejected  those  traits  regarding  which  a  supervisor  could  not  be  ex- 
pected to  express  a  judgment  as  the  result  of  a  single  visit  of  one 
period  to  the  teacher's  classroom.  Among  such  traits  are  health,  dis- 
position of  teacher,  and  cooperation.  Kent  has  criticized  score  cards 
by  pointing  out  that  the  achievements  of  pupils  are  given  relatively 
little  weight,  and  proposes  a  scheme  of  rating  in  which  the  achieve- 
ments of  pupils  are  considered  as  the  most  important  single  division. 
Connor,  by  giving  explicit  definitions  of  the  qualities  to  be  appraised, 
has  attempted  to  make  ratings  by  means  of  score  cards  more  objec- 
tive-  He  also  gives  a  prominent  place  to  the  achievements  of  pupils. 

[6] 


Devices  for  assigning  ratings  to  traits.  A  variety  of  devices 
have  been  proposed  for  assigning  ratings  to  the  traits  enumerated 
on  the  score  cards.  Elliott's  gave  the  number  of  points  to  be  given 
for  perfection  in  each  of  the  traits.  A  supervisor  was  then  instructed 
to  deduct  from  this  maximum.  For  example,  if  the  maximum  credit 
allowed  a  trait  was  10  the  deductions  for  deficiencies  were  to  be  as 
follows:  very  slight,  2;  slight,  4;  marked,  6;  very  marked,  7;  extreme, 
8.  In  Boyce's  score  card  a  quality  rating  was  given  for  each  trait  by 
placing  a  check  mark  in  the  appropriate  column.  These  qualitative 
ratings,  however,  could  easily  be  translated  into  numerical  equiva- 
lents if  such  were  desired.  The  score  card  of  the  New  York  Bureau 
of  Municipal  Research  did  not  provide  for  numerical  ratings.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  card  by  Rugg,  although  it  would  be  possible  to 
devise  a  procedure  for  translating  the  qualitative  ratings  into  numer- 
ical ones. 

Score  cards  do  not  yield  accurate  measures  of  teaching  effi- 
ciency. In  judging  the  worth  of  any  measuring  instrument  attention 
is  centered  primarily  upon  two  questions:  first,  does  it  measure  the 
trait  or  traits  which  it  claims  to  measure;  second,  how  accurate  are 
the  measurements  which  it  yields.  Score  cards  have  been  shown 
defective  in  both  respects,  but  because  the  gross  inaccuracies  in  the 
measures  yielded  are  sufficient  to  disqualify  them  as  a  practical 
device  for  the  measurement  of  teaching  efficiency,  it  is  not  necessary 
in  this  circular  to  consider  also  their  limitations  with  respect  to 
overlapping  of  traits  or  to  the  particular  traits  enumerated. 

Rugg1  states  that  he  obtained  coefficients  of  reliability  for  the 
Elliott  Scale  for  Measuring  the  Merits  of  Teachers  which  closely 
approximated  0.  "Practically  no  correlation  exceeded  .2."  He  also 
states  that  the  probable  error  of  measurement  for  such  scales  as 
Elliott's,  Boyce's,  Beatty's  and  Hill's  is  approximately  10  points  on 
a  scale  of  100  points.  He  further  asserts  that  we  should  discard 
ordinary  rating  scales  for  measuring  teaching  efficiency-  "We  cannot 
justify  wasting  the  time  of  our  school  administrators  and  deluding 
our  teachers  with  fictitious  'ratings'  and  'marks.'  Even  on  one  of  the 
so-called  'standardized'  point  rating  schemes  single  rating  has  little 
or  no  scientific  validity."   In  another  place2  he  claims  that  "the  un- 


^ugg,  H.  O.  "Is  the  rating  of  human  character  practical?"  Journal  of  Educational  Psy- 
chology,   12:426,  November,    1921. 

2Rugg,  H.  O.  "Self-improvement  of  teachers  through  self-rating:  a  new  scale  for  rating 
teachers'  efficiency,"  The  Elementary  School  Journal,  20:683,  May,   1920. 

[7] 


reliability  of  current  typical  ratings  of  teachers  by  principals  is  so 
great  that  it  is  almost  valueless." 

After  an  extensive  inquiry  into  the  qualities  related  to  success 
in  teaching  and  their  measurement,  Knight3  concludes  "that  in 
judging  particular  traits  general  estimate  influences  the  particular 
estimate  to  such  a  degree  that  judgments  of  particular  traits  are 
in  themselves  of  little  practical  use."  A  supervisor's  rating  of  a 
teacher  in  some  particular  trait  is  "a  defense  of  his  general  esti- 
mate of  that  teacher  as  well  as  a  rating  of  the  trait  under  consid- 
eration." Incidentally,  it  is  significant  to  note  that  Knight  also 
concludes  that  "the  general  factor  of  interest  in  one's  work  becomes 
the  dominant  factor  in  determining  one's  success  in  teaching." 

Score  cards  useful  as  a  means  of  self-improvement.  Although 
the  conclusion  that  score  cards  are  unsatisfactory  as  a  means  of 
measuring  teaching  efficiency  cannot  be  avoided,  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily follow  that  they  have  no  value.  As  pointed  out  in  the  be- 
ginning, score  cards  have  been  thought  of  as  fulfilling  two  func- 
tions. In  addition  to  their  use  as  instruments  for  securing  a  measure 
of  teaching  efficiency  many  supervisors  have  found  them  very  helpful 
as  a  means  of  improving  teachers  in  service.  In  fact,  some  of  the 
more  recent  score  cards,  for  example  the  one  by  Rugg,  have  been 
designed  with  this  function  specifically  in  mind. 

II.    MAN-TO-MAN  COMPARISON  SCALES 

Origin.  A  different  type  of  instrument  for  measuring  teacher 
efficiency  was  originated  by  Walter  Dill  Scott  at  the  Carnegie  Insti- 
tute of  Technology  in  1917.  The  essential  feature  of  this  plan,  which 
is  called  a  Man-to-Man  Comparison  Scale,  was  that  the  supervisor 
or  any  person  using  the  scale  made  one  of  his  own  which  consisted 
of  real  persons  intimately  known  to  him.  These  scale  persons,  five 
in  number,  are  chosen  so  that  they  represent  degrees  of  the  traits  or 
general  qualities  from  the  poorest  to  the  best.  In  making  such  a 
scale  to  measure  teacher  efficiency,  one  is  directed  to  select  "the  best 
teacher  you  have  ever  known"  for  the  highest  step  of  the  scale.  For 
the  lowest  step  of  the  scale  "the  poorest  teacher  you  have  ever 
known"  is  to  be  selected.  Other  teachers  are  chosen  to  represent 
"average,"  "better  than  average,"  and  "poorer  than  average."  This 
scale  is  to  be  used  in  very  much  the  same  way  as  one  in  handwriting 


8Knight,  F.  B.     "Qualities   related   to  success   in  teaching."   Teachers   College  Contributions   to 
Education  No.    120.    New  York:    Teachers  College,  Columbia  University,    1922.   67  p. 

[8] 


or  composition.  In  measuring  a  given  phase  of  teacher  efficiency,  the 
teacher  under  consideration  is  compared  with  the  scale  teacher.  The 
scale  value  of  the  scale  teacher  which  he  is  judged  to  resemble  most 
nearly  is  taken  as  a  measure  of  this  phase  of  his  teaching  efficiency. 

This  man-to-man  comparison  scale  was  first  used  by  Scott  for 
rating  employees  in  industry.  When  the  United  States  entered  the 
World  War  in  1917,  Scott  and  a  number  of  other  eminent  psycholo- 
gists were  called  into  service  for  the  purpose  of  devising  means  for 
rating  prospective  as  well  as  commissioned  officers.  The  man-to- 
man comparison  scale  was  decided  upon  as  the  device  most  likely 
to  give  satisfactory  results.  The  technique  for  the  construction  of 
such  a  scale  and  its  application  was  worked  out.  In  September,  1918, 
Rugg  was  invited  to  make  a  study  of  this  scale,  particularly  of  its 
reliability.4 

How  to  make  a  Man-to-Man  Comparison  Scale  for  measuring 
teaching  efficiency.  A  unique  feature  of  the  man-to-man  compari- 
son scale  is  that  each  person  makes  his  own  scale.  In  doing  this  it 
is  highly  important  that  he  exercise  care  in  selecting  scale  teachers 
who  will  accurately  represent  the  degree  of  the  quality  for  which 
they  are  chosen.  It  is  obvious  that  anyone  who  does  not  have  a 
reasonably  wide  acquaintance  with  teachers  will  be  seriously  handi- 
capped in  making  a  scale.  The  following  procedure  is  recommended. 

1-  The  first  step  is  to  decide  upon  the  rubrics  of  qualities  or 
traits  which  are  to  be  measured.  It  is  probably  wise  to  recognize 
from  three  to  five  rubrics  of  qualities  rather  than  to  make  one  general 
scale  including  all  qualities.  Rugg5  has  suggested  the  following  divi- 
sions: (1)  Skill  in  teaching,  (2)  Skill  in  mechanics  of  managing  a 
class,  (3)  Team  work  qualities,  (4)  Quality  of  growth  and  keeping 
up-to-date,  (5)  Personal  and  social  qualities. 

2.  For  each  rubric  of  qualities  a  separate  scale  is  to  be  made. 
The  first  step  in  its  construction  is  to  write  down  the  names  of  at 
least  twenty-five  teachers  whom  you  know  well  with  respect  to  the 
first  group  of  traits  being  considered.  This  list  should  include  teach- 
ers representing  various  degrees  of  excellence.  It  is  highly  important 
that  the  poorest  teacher  and  also  the  best  teacher  whom  you  have 
ever  known  be  included.  This  procedure  is  to  be  repeated  for  each 
rubric.  It  is  likely  that  the  names  of  certain  teachers  will  appear  in 
two  or  more  lists. 


4For  the  result  of  Rugg's  investigation  see  page   11. 

eRugg,    H.    O.     "Self-improvement    of    teachers    through    self-rating:    a    new    scale    for    rating 
teachers'  efficiency."    Elementary  School  Journal,   20:670-84,  May,    1920. 

[9] 


3.  Arrange  the  teachers  in  each  list  in  order  of  merit,  placing 
the  best  at  the  top  and  the  poorest  at  the  bottom.  In  doing  this 
consider  only  the  traits  included  in  the  rubric  under  consideration. 
For  example,  in  arranging  the  teachers  in  "skill  in  managing  a  class" 
no  consideration  should  be  given  to  their  "qualities  of  growth  and 
keeping  up-to-date."  This  ranking  of  teachers  is  the  most  important 
as  well  as  the  most  difficult  step  in  the  formation  of  the  scale,  and 
should  be  made  as  accurate  as  possible. 

4.  From  each  list  select  five  teachers  who  will  be  satisfactory 
representatives  of  the  following  degrees  of  excellence:  (1)  "the  best 
teacher  ever  known,"  (2)  "better  than  average  teacher,"  (3)  "av- 
erage teacher,"  (4)  "poorer  than  average  teacher,"  and  (5)  "the 
poorest  teacher  ever  known."  It  is  recommended  that  these  five 
teachers  be  selected  in  the  following  order:  "best,"  "poorest,"  "av- 
erage," "better  than  average,"  "poorer  than  average." 

The  final  scale  consists  of  the  list  of  five  teachers  for  each  rubric 
of  qualities  selected  for  measurement.  When  a  supervisor  has  once 
made  a  scale  it  may  be  preserved  and  used  year  after  year  until 
there  is  good  reason  for  revision.  Such  a  scale  should  be  a  part  of 
the  equipment  of  each  supervisor. 

In  a  large  city  school  system  where  there  are  several  supervisors 
engaged  in  rating  teachers  it  will  be  helpful  to  have  them  work  to- 
gether in  preparing  their  man-to-man  comparison  scales.  By  such 
cooperation  greater  uniformity  in  the  measurements  will  be  secured 
even  though  the  completed  scales  probably  will  not  be  composed  of 
the  same  teachers. 

Method  of  rating  teachers  by  means  of  a  man-to-man  compar- 
son  scale.  In  rating  teachers  with  a  man-to-man  comparison  scale 
only  one  rubric  of  qualities  is  considered  at  a  time.  Numerical  values 
are  assigned  to  each  of  the  scale  teachers.  The  following  have  been 
proposed:  38,  30,  22,  14,  6.  If  a  particular  teacher  when  rated  with 
respect  to  "skill  in  teaching"  is  judged  to  be  equivalent  to  the  best 
teacher  the  supervisor  has  ever  known  he  would  receive  a  numerical 
rating  of  38.  On  the  other  hand  if  he  is  judged  to  be  equivalent  to 
the  "poorer  than  average"  he  would  receive  a  rating  of  14.  In  rating 
a  teacher  with  reference  to  one  rubric  of  qualities  no  consideration 
should  be  given  to  his  other  qualities  or  to  the  other  qualities  of  the 
scale  teacher.  The  total  rating  of  a  teacher  is  obtained  by  adding 
together  the  numerical  ratings  on  each  of  the  rubrics  of  qualities. 

[10] 


The  reliability  of  ratings  by  means  of  a  man-to-man  compari- 
son scale.  No  study  has  been  made  as  yet  of  the  reliability  of  teacher 
ratings  by  means  of  a  man-to-man  comparison  scale  when  used  by 
superintendents  or  other  supervisors.  The  reliability  of  such  ratings 
can  be  inferred  from  the  study  which  Rugg  made  of  the  use  of  this 
scale  in  the  army.  For  two  ratings  of  the  same  officers  by  different 
persons  he  states  that  the  average  differences  between  the  two  ratings 
were: 

"For  second  lieutenant 12.0  points 

For  first  lieutenant 21.7  points 

For  captain 16.^9  points." 

The  maximum  possible  rating  in  all  cases  was  80  points.  Rugg  also 
states  that  "it  was  very  improbable  that  an  officer  was  located  within 
even  his  proper  'fifth'  of  the  entire  scale  in  his  'official'  rating,"  and 
"the  chances  can  not  be  more  than  four  to  one  that  any  rating  will 
be  within  fourteen  points  of  the  persons  true  rating."  The  probable 
error  of  measurement  is  approximately  seven  points  on  the  scale  of 
eighty. 

Man-to-man  comparison  scale  versus  score  cards.  It  is  clear 
from  the  information  presented  in  the  preceding  discussions  that 
neither  score  cards  nor  man-to-man  comparison  scales  may  be  ex- 
pected to  yield  highly  accurate  measures  of  teaching  efficiency.  Even 
under  the  most  favorable  conditions  the  probable  error  of  measure- 
ment will  be  so  large  that  serious  limitations  must  be  placed  on  the 
measures  secured.  It  is,  however,  worth  while  to  note  that  the  meas- 
ures yielded  by  the  man-to-man  comparison  scale  will  ordinarily 
be  more  accurate  than  those  secured  by  the  usual  score  card. 


III.    MEASUREMENT  OF  TEACHING  EFFICIENCY  BY  MEANS 

OF  STANDARDIZED  TESTS 

Achievements  of  pupils  an  index  of  teaching  efficiency.   The 

proposal  to  measure  the  efficiency  of  a  teacher  by  means  of  standard- 
ized tests  is  based  upon  the  thesis  that  "a  teacher's  merit  is  directly 
proportional  to  the  changes  which  he  engenders  in  his  pupils."  His 
training,  personality,  initiative,  health,  skill  in  teaching,  ability  as  a 
disciplinarian,  etc.,  are  significant  only  for  the  effects  which  they 
produce  in  the  pupils.  In  other  words,  "By  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them." 

[11] 


Teacher  activity  versus  pupil  activity.  Both  of  the  preceding 
methods  of  measuring  teaching  efficiency  have  implied  the  opposite 
point  of  view,  viz.,  that  the  teacher  should  be  judged  by  his  traits  and 
activities  rather  than  by  the  achievements  of  his  pupils.6  In  the  use  of 
practically  all  the  score  cards  and  man-to-man  comparison  scales, 
attention  is  focused  primarily  upon  the  activity  of  the  teacher.  In 
the  use  of  standardized  tests  the  attention  is  transferred  to  pupil 
activity  and  achievements.  The  first  method  implies  that  the  things 
which  the  teacher  does  are  ends  in  themselves;  the  second,  that  these 
things  are  merely  means  to  an  end. 

Limitations  of  the  measurement  of  teaching  efficiency  by  means 
of  standardized  tests.  The  use  of  standardized  tests  for  the  meas- 
urement of  teaching  efficiency  is  limited  by  the  lack  of  such  tests  for 
measuring  all  of  the  outcomes  engendered  by  the  teacher.  Skills  in 
the  tool  subjects,  reading,  arithmetic,  hand-writing,  spelling,  and 
language  form  an  important  group  of  achievements,  but  the  pupil  is 
expected  to  acquire  also  other  habits  and  knowledge  and  to  form 
desirable  ideals,  tastes,  interests  and  perspectives.  These  last  con- 
stitute the  "less  tangible  outcomes"  of  education,  and  for  measuring 
them  no  satisfactory  standardized  tests  have  been  devised.  Hence, 
all  of  the  results  of  teaching  cannot  as  yet  be  measured.  Moreover, 
when  standardized  tests  are  used  systematically  as  instruments  for 
measuring  teaching  efficiency,  teachers  and  pupils  very  likely  tend 
to  emphasize  the  tool  subjects  which  can  be  measured  and  to  neglect 
the  less  tangible  but  equally  important  outcomes.  Such  test  results 
cannot  be  considered  true  indications  of  teaching  efficiency. 

Certain  imperfections  of  our  present  standardized  tests  consti- 
tute additional  limitations.  Variable  errors  of  measurement  tend  to 
be  neutralized  in  the  average  scores  of  a  class,  but  constant  errors 
cannot  be  eliminated  in  this  way,  and  make  measures  of  achieve- 
ments erroneous  indices  of  teaching  efficiency.7 

Since  the  engendering  of  skills  is  much  less  prominent  in  the 
work  of  the  high  school  than  in  that  of  the  elementary  school  it 
naturally  follows  that  in  the  former  fewer  standardized  tests  are 
available  for  measuring  teaching  efficiency.  In  fact,  except  for  alge- 
bra, foreign  languages,  typewriting,  and  stenography  there  are  prac- 

eKent,  R.  A.  "What  should  teacher  rating  schemes  seek  to  measure?"  Journal  of  Educa- 
tional Research,  2:802-07,  December,    1920. 

7For  a  further  discussion  of  teaching  efficiency  see,  Monroe,  Walter  S.  "The  constant  and 
Tariable  errors  of  educational  measurements."  University  of  Illinois  Bulletin,  Vol.  21,  No.  10. 
Bureau  of  Educational  Research   Bulletin  No.    15.    Urbana:    University  of  Illinois,    1923. 

[12] 


tically  no  standardized  tests  for  high-school  use  that  may  be  con- 
sidered satisfactory. 

Standardized  tests  yield  one  index  of  teaching  efficiency.    In 

spite  of  their  limitations  it  should  be  recognized  that  in  the  elemen- 
tary school  standardized  tests,  in  that  they  measure  specific  habits 
or  skills,  do  yield  an  important  index  of  teaching  efficiency.  A  super- 
intendent or  principal  would  be  distinctly  unwise  in  basing  his  meas- 
ures of  the  merits  of  his  teachers  wholly  upon  the  results  of  stand- 
ardized tests,  but  he  would  also  be  unwise  if  he  did  not  consider 
these  results  in  making  his  final  estimate  of  the  worth  of  his  teachers. 
Furthermore,  the  use  of  standardized  tests  serves  to  focus  the  atten- 
tion upon  pupil  activity  rather  than  upon  teacher  activity.  Even  in 
our  attempts  to  measure  teaching  efficiency  by  other  means  it  is 
probable  that  more  valid  results  will  be  obtained  if  we  consider  the 
activity  of  the  pupil  rather  than  that  of  the  teacher. 

Quality  of  pupil  material  must  be  considered.  In  the  use  of 
standardized  tests  to  measure  teaching  efficiency,  it  is  necessary  to 
take  into  account  the  quality  of  the  pupil  material  as  well  as  the 
achievements  of  the  pupils.  Cases  have  been  reported  in  which 
teachers  were  grossly  misjudged  because  they  were  working  with  a 
pupil  group  whose  average  intelligence  was  either  very  high  or  very 
low.  Recently  the  achievement  quotient  (A.  Q.)  has  been  proposed 
as  a  device  for  expressing  a  measure  of  achievement  in  comparison 
with  capacity  to  learn.  Such  a  quotient  is  obtained  by  dividing  a 
pupil's  achievement  by  his  general  intelligence.  Both  measures  must 
necessarily  be  expressed  in  terms  of  comparable  units.  A  convenient 
method  states  the  measures  of  achievement  in  terms  of  achievement 
age  and  the  measures  of  general  intelligence  in  terms  of  mental  age. 
The  quotient  is  expressed  as  a  percent,  the  decimal  point  being 
omitted.  A  quotient  of  100  means  that  a  pupil's  achievement  is  just 
equivalent  to  that  of  the  average  pupil  of  his  mental  age.  Conse- 
quently an  average  or  median  achievement  quotient  for  a  class  means 
that  the  teacher  has  been  doing  just  average  work.  A  median  A.  Q. 
of  distinctly  above  100  indicates  superior  teaching  ability;  on  the 
other  hand  a  median  A.  Q.  distinctly  below  100  indicates  inferior 
teaching. 

Even  in  the  use  of  the  achievement  quotient  as  an  index  of 
teaching  efficiency  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  the  previous  status 
of  the  class.    The  achievements  of  the  group  of  pupils  at  any  one 

[13] 


time  is  dependent  in  part  upon  their  present  teacher  and  in  part  upon 
their  previous  educational  experience. 

IV.    SUGGESTED  PLAN  FOR  THE  MEASUREMENT  OF 
TEACHING  EFFICIENCY 


The  practical  need  for  the  measurement  of  teaching  efficiency. 

Many  superintendents  and  principals  face  the  practical  problem  of 
securing  a  numerical  rating  of  the  efficiency  of  their  teachers  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  reemployment,  promotions  and  increases  in 
salary.  Although  none  of  the  three  methods  for  measuring  teaching 
efficiency  which  have  been  considered  in  the  preceding  pages  is  satis- 
factory, it  seems  wise  to  suggest  a  plan  to  meet  this  practical  need. 
The  following  procedure  represents  merely  the  opinion  of  the  writers 
and  is  recognized  as  being  imperfect.  It  is  included  in  this  circular 
because  of  several  requests  which  have  come  to  the  Director  of  the 
Bureau  of  Educational  Research  for  advice  in  regard  to  the  rating 
of  teachers. 

Measurement  of  teaching  efficiency  should  be  based  upon 
achievements  of  pupils.  A  teacher's  academic  and  professional  train- 
ing, experience,  intelligence,  personal  or  social  qualities,  interest  in 
teaching,  and  other  traits  are  merely  means  to  an  end,  namely,  the 
engendering  of  achievements  in  school  children.  Thus  the  measure 
of  a  teacher's  efficiency  should  be  based  upon  the  achievements 
which  he  engenders.  In  arriving  at  a  measure  of  the  efficiency  of 
an  operator  of  a  machine  only  the  output  is  considered.  No  attention 
is  given  to  training  and  experience,  interest  in  work,  or  other  traits. 
The  operator  who  obtains  the  greatest  output  is  considered  as  the 
most  efficient  and  the  one  whose  production  is  low  as  inefficient.  In 
the  same  way  that  teacher  should  be  considered  most  efficient  who 
engenders  in  his  pupils  the  greatest  growth  in  achievement  and  that 
teacher  as  least  efficient  who  engenders  the  least  growth.8  It  should 
be  noted  that  all  the  elements  of  growth  must  be  measured;  ideals, 
interests  and  attitudes  must  be  considered  as  well  as  skills  and 
knowledge. 

Since  we  are  limited  in  the  measurement  of  school  achievements 
and  in  their  evaluation  in  terms  of  social  worth,  it  is  necessary  that 


8In  evaluating  this  growth  the  social  worth  of  the  achievements  must  be  considered.  Certain 
achievements  may  be  of  little  value  when  judged  by  their  social  usefulness.  For  example,  the 
ability  to  spell  words  which  are  seldom,  if  ever,  used  in  ordinary  writing  has  little  social  value. 
Exceptionally  high  degrees  of  skill  in  performing  the  arithmetical  operations  have  little  general 
social  value. 

[14] 


other  factors  be  recognized  in  a  practical  plan  for  the  measurement 
of  teaching  efficiency.  In  the  plan  proposed  four  such  qualities  are 
included:  (1)  personal  and  professional  qualities,  (2)  general  intel- 
ligence, (3)  experience,  (4)  academic  and  professional  training.  As 
indicated  above  these  traits  are  merely  a  means  to  an  end  but  they 
sustain  a  fairly  high  positive  correlation  with  the  achievements  of 
pupils. 

Teaching  experience  and  academic  and  professional  training  are 
more  important  in  selecting  teachers  for  employment  than  in  meas- 
uring their  efficiency  after  employment.*  They  are  included  in  this 
plan  of  rating  because  they  permit  of  objective  measurement.  It 
should  be  noted  that  they  are  given  relatively  less  weight  than  either 
of  the  other  divisions  of  the  plan. 

I.  Achievements  of  Pupils 

In  measuring  the  achievements  of  pupils  standardized  tests 
should  be  used  in  so  far  as  they  are  available  and  the  achieve- 
ment quotient  (A.  Q.)  calculated.  However,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  supplement  such  measurement  by  means  of  written  examina- 
tions and  by  teachers'  estimates  in  the  ca«e  of  such  outcomes  as 
interest  of  pupils  in  school  work,  technique  of  study  and  ideals. 
There  should  be  a  distinct  effort  to  secure  a  composite  measure 
of  all  the  outcomes  of  instruction  of  the  teacher  whose  efficiency 
is  being  measured. 

In  judging  the  measures  of  achievement  it  is  necessary  to 
measure  the  quality  of  the  pupil  material  with  which  the  teacher 
is  working.  The  achievement  quotient  is  a  useful  device  for  do- 
ing this  when  standardized  tests  are  used.  In  the  case  of  meas- 
urement by  means  of  written  examinations  and  estimates  of 
achievement,  one  should  attempt  to  approximate  the  achieve- 
ment quotient. 

Numerical  scored  approximately  the  same  as  the  achieve- 
ment quotient  (A.  Q.);  median  score,  100;  maximum  score,  150; 
minimum  score,  50.10 


^The  numerical  score  for  this  and  other  divisions  of  the  plan  proposed  for  measuring;  teaching 
efficiency  implies  a  scheme  of  weighting  the  various  divisions.  The  numerical  score  for  achievements 
of  pupils  is  for  a  relatively  complete  measurement  of  all  achievements.  In  case  only  a  few  of  the 
achievements  of  the  pupils  are  measured  this  division  should  be  given  less  weight. 

"Unusually  high  or  unusually  low  achievement  quotients  probably  involve  relatively  large 
errors.    For  this  reason  upper  and  lower  limits  are  specified. 

[15] 


II.  Personal  and  Professional  Traits  of  the  Teacher 

The  teacher  is  to  be  rated  by  means  of  a  man-to-man  com- 
parison scale  for  each  of  the  following  four  groups  of  traits: 

(a)  interest  in  school  work,  particularly  classroom  instruction, 

(b)  skill  in  the  mechanics  of  managing  a  class,   (c)  quality  of 
growth  and  keeping  up-to-date,  (d)  personal  and  social  qualities. 

Numerical  score:  the  rating  for  each  group  of  qualities  is  to 
be  on  a  scale  for  which  the  maximum  score  is  38.  (See  page  10.) 
The  numerical  score  for  this  division  is  to  be  the  sum  of  the  four 
ratings  divided  by  two.  The  maximum  score  according  to  this 
plan  would  be  76,  median  score  44,  and  minimum  score  12. 

III.  General  Intelligence  of  the  Teacher 

For  measuring  the  general  intelligence  of  a  teacher  a  scale 
suitable  for  adults  should  be  used.  The  Otis  Group  Intelligence 
Test,  Advanced  Examination,  or  the  Army  Alpha  is  suggested. 

Numerical  score:  A  teacher's  score  on  the  intelligence  test 
should  be  judged  with  respect  to  norms  for  teachers.  In  trans- 
lating the  test  score  into  the  numerical  score  for  this  rating  scale, 
a  test  score  equal  to  the  average  score  for  teachers  should  be 
taken  as  equivalent  to  25.  The  maximum  numerical  score  for 
intelligence  should  be  40  and  the  minimum  10.1 


ii 


IV.  Teaching  Experience 

Numerical  score:  beginning  teachers,  0;  4  points  additional 
for  each  year  of  experience  up  to  six  years.  Beyond  six  years  it 
has  been  found  that  experience  does  not  seem  to  be  a  potent 
factor  in  contributing  to  the  success  of  the  teacher. 

V.  Academic  and  Professional  Training  of  Teachers 

Numerical  score:  (a)  Teachers  in  the  elementary  school: 
completion  of  the  eighth  grade,  a  score  of  0;  completion  of  the 
twelfth  grade,  a  score  of  10;  an  additional  two  points  for  each 
six  weeks  of  attendance  at  a  college  or  a  normal  school, 
(b)  Teachers  in  high  school:  completion  of  the  twelfth  grade, 
a  score  of  0;  an  additional  five  points  for  each  year. of  college 
or  normal  school  work. 


ult    is    likely   that   different    norms    should    be    used    in   evaluating    the   general    intelligence   of 
elementary-school  teachers,  and  of  high-school  teachers. 

[16] 


w 
X 
V 

< 
w 

H 

Q 

w 

55 
O 

CO 
CO 

< 

o 

55 

< 


O 
55 

< 
U 

U 


o 

W 

S 
w 

E 
O 


J 

cd 


3 

.2 
u 


O 


o 


u 


o 

o 


CO 


CX    as 
4>     >» 


.5   o 

o 


VO 


k  2 

CX    rt  _ 

u  CX 

r*<     >^  3 


O 
wo 


cs 


V 
CJ 
3 

a 

<u 
*-> 

4-> 

ej 

«»   2 

.a  s 

w    o 

3 


-3 
u 
rt 
ID 

«- 
<° 

CO 

4-1 

3 

*o 


O 

<u 
to 

o 


CX  ^ 


O 

u 


t-. 
O 


-3  ° 

"  a 

co  3 

.S  o 

O  a> 

CX  bQ 


CO 

£ 


1) 

> 
o 


f2 


Q 

W 
& 

CO 
■< 
W 

CO 

(4 
h 

-J 
< 

CO 
*&, 

3 

a 
>*- 
.o 

CO 

4-> 

3 
o 

£ 
> 

< 

o 

4-J 

u 

I 

c/5 

In 

a. 

c 

rt 
<u 

4- 

c 

> 

4- 

"rt 
3 
C 

o 

CO 

a 

£ 

6 

rt 

a. 
X 

a 

03 

a. 

4- 
«*. 

c 

<u 

u 

c 

ftj 

cu 
u 

CO 

oS 

3 

CO 

«- 
ftj 

JC 
CJ 

CT3 

ftj 

4-J 

C 

<U 

CJ 

C 

'E 

aj 

«- 
ftj 

£ 
c 

C 

'c 

o 
o 

-c 

to 
3 

E 

w 

<L 

CJ 

rt 

ftj 

4. 
V*. 

C 

O 

o 

-3 
o 

CO 

.3° 

.£ 

4- 

ft 

ftj 

4- 

) 

a 

_3 

w 
u 

4J 

C 

^             rt 

rt 

CO 

o 

ft. 

c 

X 

u 

<- 

o 

< 

a, 

ta 

H 

h 

CX 

£ 

HH 

*— < 

— 

> 

> 

0 

U 

[17] 


ANNOTATED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ON  MEASUREMENT  OF 
TEACHING  EFFICIENCY 

I.  Studies  of  the  qualities  of  teachers. 
Anderson,  W.  N.  "The  selection  of  teachers,"  Educational  Admin- 
istration and  Supervision,  3:83-90,  February,  1917. 

A  list  of  qualities  rated  by  presidents  of  school  boards  and  another  list  rated 
by  superintendents  is  included  in  this  reference.  Comparison  is  made  between  these 
lists  and  another  list  derived  from  an  investigation  of  "Why  teachers  fail." 

Bird,  Grace  E.  "Pupil's  estimate  of  teachers,"  Journal  of  Edu- 
cational Psychology,  8:35-40,  January,  1917. 

A  graph  showing  a  comparison  between  the  amount  of  quality  desired  by  the 
high-school  boy,  the  high-school  girl,  and  the  normal-school  girl  is  given.  A  table 
of  results  is  also  included. 

Book,  W.  F.  "The  high  school  teacher  from  the  pupil's  point  of 

view,"  Pedagogical  Seminary,   12:239-88,  September,   1905. 

This  is  an  inquiry  of  pupils'  opinions  to  discover  traits  in  teachers  that  best 
aid  pupil  progress. 

Boyce,  A.   C.  "Qualities   of   merit  in   secondary   school   teachers," 

Journal  of  Educational  Psychology,  3:144-57,  March,  1912. 

This  is  a  careful  study  of  each  particular  quality  in  its  relation  to  general 
teacher-merit.   Tables  of  correlation  are  included. 

Buellesfield,  Henry.  "Causes  of  failures  among  teachers,"  Edu- 
cational Administration  and  Supervision,  1:439-45,  September, 
1915. 

A  list  of  qualities  in  order  of  frequency  is  included. 
Clapp,  F.  L.  "Scholarship  in  relation  to  teaching  efficiency."   School 
Review  Monographs,  No.  6.    Chicago:  University  of  Chicago, 
1915,  p.  64-70. 

Coffman,  L.  D.  "The  rating  of  teachers  in  service."   School  Review 

Monographs,  No.  5.    Chicago:  University  of  Chicago,  1914,  p. 

13-24. 

The  correlations  of  Ruediger  and  Strayer,  Boyce,  Clapp,  Littler,  and  Moses 
are  included. 

Colvin,  Stephen  S.  "The  most  common  faults  of  beginning  high- 
school  teachers,"  School  and  Society,  7:451-59,  April,  1918. 

Courtis,  Stuart  A.  "Standards  of  teaching  ability,"    Educational 
Review,  62:183-86,  October,  1921. 
This  is  a  short  article  on  the  present  situation  of  teacher  measurement. 

[18] 


Johnston,  Joseph  H.  "Teacher  rating  in  large  cities,"  School  Re- 
view, 24:641-47,  November,  1916. 

Knight,  F.  B.  "Qualities  related  to  success  in  teaching."  Teachers 
College  Contributions  to  Education  No.  120.  New  York: 
Teachers  College,  Columbia  University,  1922,  67  p. 

Knight,  F.  B.  "Qualities  related  to  success  in  elementary-school 
teaching,"  Journal  of  Educational  Research,  5:207-16,  March, 
1922. 

An  attempt  was  made  in  this  article  to  contribute  statistically  dependable 
facts  as  to  teacher  selection. 

Kratz,  H.  E.  Studies  and  Observations  in  the  Schoolroom.  Chicago: 

Educational  Publishing  Company,  1907,  Chapter  5. 

This  is  an  investigation  to  discover  the  teaching  qualities  of  teachers  of  the 
elementary  school  from  the  pupils'  point  of  view. 

Littler,    Sherman.  "Causes    of   failure    among    elementary-school 

teachers,"  School  and  Home  Education,  33:255-56,  March,  1914. 

The  list  of  qualities  found  by  Littler  is  compared  with  those  included  in  the 
study  of  Ruediger  and  Strayer. 

Moses,  Cleda.  "Why  high-school  teachers  fail,"  School  and  Home 
Education,  33:166-69,  January,  1914. 

The  qualities  of  this  study  are  also  compared  with  those  of  Ruediger  and 
Strayer. 

Osburn,  J.  W.  "Personal  characteristics  of  the  teacher,"  Educa- 
tional Administration  and  Supervision,  6:74-86,  February,  1920. 

This  is  a  very  comprehensive  study  which  reviews  the  qualities  of  teacher 
merit  discovered  by  the  more  important  studies  to  date.  It  also  includes  a  study 
of  teaching  qualities  from  the  normal-school  and  college  point  of  view. 

Payne,  E.  George.  "Scholarship  and  success  in  teaching,"  Journal 
of  Educational  Psychology,  9:217-19,  April,  1918. 

Ruediger,  William  C.  and  Strayer,  George  D.  "The  quality  of 
merit  in  teachers,"  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology,  1:272- 
78,  May,  1910. 

This  is  a  preliminary  study  of  teacher  merit  based  upon  fourteen  qualities. 

,  Sears,  J.  B.  "The  measurement  of  teaching  efficiency,"  Journal  of 

Educational  Research,  4:81-94,  September,  1921. 

A  brief  history,  the  theoretical  and  the  practical  aspects  of  teacher  measure- 
ment, and  an  outline  of  the  next  step  in  teacher  rating  is  included  in  this  review. 

Whitney,  E.  L.  "The  analysis  of  teaching  functions,"    Journal  of 
Educational  Research,  7:297-308,  April,  1923. 
Partial  correlations  of  various  elements  in  teaching  success  are  given. 

[19] 


II.   Rating  Scales  for  Teachers. 

Abel,  E.  L.  "A  practical  teacher  rating  card,"  The  American 
Schoolmaster,  14:256-58,  September,  1921. 

A  score  card  is  included  in  which  an  attempt  was  made  to  place  overlapping 
qualities  of  a  type  under  a  single  head. 

Adams,  W.  C.  T.  "Two  teacher  rating  cards,"  The  American 
School  Board  Journal,  59:30,  101,  December,  1919. 

Adams,  W.  C.  T.  "Superintendent's  Rating  of  Teachers,"  Journal 
of  Education,  90:288-89,  September,  1919. 

A  score  card  is  included  which  divides  teaching  power  into  four  elements  and 
weights  each  equally,  in  percent. 

"Basic  principles  in  the  making  of  a  salary  schedule  for  teachers," 

The  American  School  Board  Journal,  56:26-27,  83,  March,  1918. 

A  score  card  of  five  main  heads  and  fifty-five  sub-heads  is  included.  The  aim 
of  rating  the  teacher  is  to  formulate  the  salary  schedule. 

/  Boyce,  A.  C.  "A  method  of  guiding  and  controlling  the  judging  of 
teaching  efficiency,"  School  Review  Monographs,  No.  6.  Chi- 
cago:   University  of  Chicago,  1915,  p.  71-82. 

This  article  contains  Boyce's  Rating  Scale,  a  lengthy  discussion  on  methods 
of  use,  and  the  correlation  of  each  of  the  forty-five  qualities  with  general  merit.  A 
rank  order  is  also  given. 

Boyce,  A.  C.  "Methods  of  measuring  teachers'  efficiency,"  Four- 
teenth Yearbook  of  the  National  Society  for  the  Study  of 
Education,  Part  II.  Bloomington,  Illinois:  Public  School  Pub- 
lishing Company,  1915,    82p. 

This  article  by  Boyce  is  the  most  complete  discussion  of  his  rating  scale.  It 
includes  the  scale,  its  method  of  use,  method  of  reduction  to  a  numerical  rating, 
correlations  of  each  of  the  qualities  with  general  merit,  and  the  rank  order  of  the 
qualities. 

Boyce,  A.  C.  "Qualities  of  Merit  in  Secondary  School  Teachers," 
Journal  of  Educational  Psychology,  3:144-57,  March,  1912. 

Bracken,  John  L.  "The  Duluth  system  of  rating  teachers,"  Ele- 
mentary School  Journal,  23:110-19,  October,  1922. 

Frequent  supervision  of  teachers  by  supervisors  is  recommended.  A  score 
card  is  included. 

Bradley,  J.  H.  ."A  study  of  the  relative  importance  of  the  qualities 
of  a  teacher  and  her  teaching  in  their  relation  to  general  merit," 
Educational   Administration    and    Supervision,    4:358-63,    Sep- 
tember, 1918. 
Contains  a  rating  scheme  similar  to  that  of  Elliott's. 

[20] 


Carrigan,  Rose  A.  "The  rating  of  teachers  on  the  basis  of  super- 
visory visitation,"  The  Journal  of  Educational  Method,  2:48-55, 
October,  1922. 

This  score  card  contains  rubrics  which  can  be  observed  by  a  supervisor  during 
a  single  visit.   An  attempt  to  avoid  overlapping  was  made. 

Clark,  M.  G.  "Sioux  City,  Iowa,  teachers  service  standard,"  School 
and  Home  Education,  40:167-68,  May-June,  1921. 
A  score  card  of  five  main  heads  and  twenty-three  rubrics. 

Clark,  R.  C.  "A  scale  for  measuring  teachers,"  American  School 
Board  Journal,  62:39-40,  February,  1921. 

Connor,  William  L.  "A  new  method  of  rating  teachers,"  Journal 
of  Educational  Research,  1:338-58,  May,  1920. 

Cook,  William  A.  "Uniform  standards  of  judging  teachers  in  South 
Dakota,"  Educational  Administration  and  Supervision,  7:1-11, 
January,  1921. 
The  Dakota  Rating  Scales  are  included. 

Cranor,  Katherine  T.  "A  self-scoring  card  for  supervisors  as  an 
aid  to  efficiency  in  school  work,"  Educational  Administration  and 
Supervision,  7:91-102,  February,  1922. 
A  self-scoring  scheme  for  supervisors  is  included. 

Elliott,  E.  C.  "How  shall  the  merit  of  teachers  be  tested  and  re- 
corded?" Educational  Administration  and  Supervision,  1:291-99, 
May,  1915. 
Principles  underlying  the  formation  of  score  cards  are  suggested. 

Fichandler,  A.  "A  study  in  self-appraisal,"  School  and  Society, 
4:1000-02,  December,  1916. 

This  study  shows  an  agreement  between  the  self-rating  of  the  teachers  and 
the  independent  rating  of  the  principal.  The  criticisms  of  Taylor  and  Myers  should 
be  read  with  this  article. 

Foster,  F.  M.  "A  score  card  for  rural  teachers,"  School  and  Society, 
12:131-32,  August,  1920. 

Gray,  William  S.  "Rating  scales,  self-analysis,  and  the  improvement 
of  teaching,"  School  Review,  29:49-57,  January,  1921. 

This  is  a  general  discussion  which  contains  a  rating  scale  of  ten  general  traits 
included  in  Boyce's  Rating  Scale. 

Hervey,  H.  D.  "The  rating  of  teachers,"  Journal  of  Education, 
93:319-20,  March,  1921. 

Tliis  article  contains  criteria  for  a  successful  merit  system  as  well  as  an 
argument  against  present  day  systems  of  rating  and  their  use. 

[21] 


v/ 


Hess,  Adah  H.  "Teacher  rating  as  a  means  of  improving  home- 
economics  teachers  in  service,"  The  Journal  of  Home  Economics, 
14:85-90,  February,  1922. 

Two  rating  schemes  are  included,  namely  the  teacher  self-rating  scheme  and 
the  supervisors'  rating  scheme  for  home-economics  teachers. 

Hickman,   Joseph.  "A   measuring   scale   for   teachers    in   service," 

American  School  Board  Journal,  52:43-44,  April,  1916. 

The  score  card  included  contains  a  rating  scale  of  five  general  heads  and 
eighteen  sub-heads. 

Hill,  C.  W.  "The  efficiency  ratings  of  teachers,"  Elementary 
School  Journal,  21:438-43,  February,  1921. 

Johnston,  Joseph  H.  "Scientific  supervision  of  teaching,"  School 
and  Society,  5:181-88,  February,  1917. 

Kent,  Raymond  A.  "What  should  teacher  rating  schemes  seek  to 
measure?"    Journal   of   Educational   Research,    2:802-07,    De- 
cember, 1920. 
The  Duluth  rating  scheme  is  described. 

Knight,  F.  B.  "The  effect  of  the  'acquaintance  factor'  upon  per- 
sonal judgments,"  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology,  14:129- 
42,  March,  1923. 

A  score  card,  diagrams,  curves,  tables,  and  charts  showing  various  results  of 
the  "acquaintance  factor"  are  included. 

Landsittel,  F.  C.  "Evaluation  of  merit  in  high-school  teachers," 
School  and  Society,  6:774-80,  December,  1917. 

Landsittel,  F.  C.  "A  score  card  method  of  teacher  rating,"  Educa- 
tional Administration  and  Supervision,"  4:297-309,  June,  1918. 

Laporte,  William  Ralph.  "A  system  of  personality  ratings  for 
prospective  physical-training  teachers,"  American  Physical  Edu- 
cation Review,  27:23-24,  January,  1922. 

Maddock,  William.  "Teacher  rating."    Yearbook  of  the  National 

League  of  Teachers'  Association,  1922-23,  p.  36-66. 

This  paper  includes  a  statement  on  the  general  trend  of  teacher  rating, 
present  day  status,  criticisms,  criteria  for  the  formation  of  a  scale  with  an  ex- 
planation of  items,  its  application  to  a  salary  schedule,  and  throughout  emphasizes 
the  job  of  the  supervisor. 

Meyers,  Garry  C.  "Teachers'  rating,"  School  and  Society,  5:322-23, 
March,  1917. 

This  is  a  criticism  of  Fichandler's  self-rating  scheme  and  suggests  a  scheme 
of  "teacher  self-rating  of  one  another." 

[22] 


Morton,  R.  L.  "Qualities  of  merit  in  secondary-school  teachers," 
Educational  Administration  and  Supervision,  5:225-39,  May- 
June,  1919. 

A  score  card  and  a  comparison  of  city  and  rural  teachers  is  included  in  this 
report. 

Rugg,  H.  O.  "Rating  scales  for  pupils'  dynamic  qualities:  standard- 
ized methods  of  judging  human  character,"  School  Review, 
28:337-49,  May,  1920. 

This  article  deals  mainly  with  pupil  rating.    Its  value  here  is  the  study  of 
dynamic  qualities. 

Schowalter,  B.  R.  "A  score  card  for  rural  teachers,"  School  and 
Society,  12:200,  September,  1920. 

Taylor,  Joseph  S.  "Measurement  of  educational  efficiency,"  Educa- 
tional Review,  44:348-67,  November,  1912. 

Contains  a  teacher  rating  card  especially  devised  for  kindergarten  and  another 
for  elementary  and  high-school  teachers.   A  school  summary  blank  is  also  included. 

"Teacher  personality,"  American  Physical  Education  Review,  26: 
50,  January,  1921. 

A  detailed  rating  card  of  personality  is  given. 

"Teacher  rating  card,"  Elementary  School  Journal,  20:723-24,  June, 
1920. 

The  score  card  included  is  the  Omaha  Rating  Card. 

Van  Sickle,  J.  H.,  Whythe,  John,  and  Deffenbaugh,  W.  S. 
"Public  education  in  the  cities  of  the  United  States."  U.  S. 
Bureau  of  Education  Bulletin,  No.  48.  Washington,  1918,  46  p. 
(Advanced  Sheets  from  the  Biennial  Survey  of  Education  in 
the  United  States  1916-1918.) 

Four  score  cards  are  given. 

Wagner,  C.  A.  "The  construction  of  a  teacher-rating  scale," 
Elementary  School  Journal,  21:361-66,  January,  1921. 

Suggestion  is  used  as  the  basis  for  teacher  rating. 

Witham,  E.  C.  "School  and  teacher  measurement,"  Journal  of 
Educational  Psychology,  5:267-78,  May,  1914. 

The  rating   scale  included  contains  forty-six  items  among  which  curriculum 
studies  are  included. 

[23] 


III.   The  Man-to-Man  Comparison  Scales. 

Rugg,  H.  O.  "Self-improvement  of  teachers  through  self-rating:   a 

new  scale  for  rating  teachers'  efficiency,"    Elementary   School 

Journal,  20:670-84,  May,   1920. 

The    self-rating    scale,    Form    I    and    Form    II,    instructions    for    use,    and    a 
concise  description  of  the  Man-to-Man  rating  scale  are  included  in  this  article. 

Rugg,  H.  O.  "Is  the  rating  of  human  character  practical?"  Journal 
of  Educational  Psychology,  12:425-38,  485-501;  November  and 
December,  1921;  13:30-42,  81-93;  January  and  February,  1922. 

These  articles  make  up  a  very  complete   study  of  teacher  rating  based  on 
studies  carried  on  in  the  various  camps  during  the  World  War.   The  Army  Rating 
Scale,  as  well  as  Rugg's  suggested  scale,  with  instructions  for  use  are  included  in  the 
series  of  articles. 
Woolley,  Paul  V.  "The  use  of  a  scale  for  judging  manual  arts 

teachers,"  Manual  Training  Magazine,  23:5-8,  July,  1921. 

This  is  Rugg's  Self-Rating  Scheme  adjusted  to  the  needs  of  manual-arts 
teachers. 

IV.   Teacher  Rating  by  Means  of  Standardized  Tests  and  the 
Accomplishment  Quotient. 

Almack,  John  C.  "Keeping  up  in  teaching,"   The  American  School 

Board  Journal,  59:27-30,  November,  1919. 

A  statement  in  this  article  says  that  educational  tests  are  doing  much  to 
eliminate  the  uncertainty  of  teaching  results.  A  rating  scale  of  twelve  points  is 
included. 

Bliss,  W.  B.     "How  much  mental  ability  does  a  teacher  need?" 
Journal  of  Educational  Research,  6:33-41,  June,  1922. 
A  comparison  is  made  between  teaching  success  and  mental  ability. 

Douglas,  H.  R.  "Some  uses  and  limitations  of  the  standard  educa- 
tional test,"  Educational  Administration  and  Supervision 
5:475-90,  December,  1919. 

Douglas  believes  that  the  progress  of  pupils  as  measured  by  tests  is  a  measure 
of  a  teacher's  efficiency.    Limitations  of  tests  are  also  discussed. 

Jenkins,  Albion  U.  "The  measurement  of  teaching  efficiency  by 
means  of  standardizing  tests,"  The  First  Yearbook  of  the  De- 
partment of  Elementary  School  Principals.  Washington:  Na- 
tional Education  Association  of  the  United  States,  1922,  p. 
25-34. 

A  study  showing  the  need  of  the  A.  Q.  as  a  measure  of  teacher  efficiency  is 
included.    Tables  of  results  are  also  given. 

[24] 


Jones,  Edward  S.  "A  suggestion  for  teacher  measurement,"    School 
and  Society,  6:321-22,  September,  1917. 
A  mental  test  is  proposed  as  a  means  of  measuring  teacher  efficiency. 

Kirkpatrick,    E.    A.  "Intelligence    tests    in    Massachusetts    State 

Normal  Schools,"  School  and  Society,  15:55-60,  January,  1922. 

Thurstone   Intelligence   Tests   are   used    as   a   means   of   determining   teacher 
efficiency. 

Monroe,  Walter  S.  "An  Introduction  to  the  Theory  of  Educational 
Measurement."  Boston:  Houghton  Mifflin  Company,  1923,  p. 
272-74. 

Measurement  by  standardized  tests  is  suggested  but  due  regard  must  be  given 
to  their  limitations,  which  are  mentioned  in  the  article. 

Stebbins,  R.  C.  "Accomplishment  quotients  as  an  aid  in  diagnosis," 
The  First  Yearbook  of  the  Department  of  Elementary  School 
Principals.  Washington:  National  Education  Association,  1922, 
p.  34-44. 

Tables  and  graphs  of  the  results  of  the  study  are  included. 

V.    Miscellaneous  Articles  on  Teacher  Rating 

Byrne,    Lee.  "A    method    of    equalizing    the    rating   of    teachers," 
Journal  of  Educational  Research,  4:102-08,  September,  1921. 
A  statistical  treatment  for  equalizing  ratings. 

Coffman,  L.  D.  "Committee  on  rating,  placing  and  promotion  of 
teachers,"  School  Review  Monographs,  No.  6.  Chicago:  Uni- 
versity of  Chicago,  1915,  p.  61-63. 

Five  recommendations  on  measurement  of  teacher  merit  are  included  in  this 
brief  committee  report. 

Miller,  George  F.  "Rating  a  teaching  position,"   American  School 
Board  Journal,  58:35-36,  February,  1919. 
A  teacher's  point  of  view. 

Morrison,  J.  Cayce.  "Methods  of  improving  classroom  instruction 
used  by  helping-teachers  and  supervising-principals  of  New 
Jersey,"  Elementary  School  Journal,  20:208-16,  November, 
1919. 

This  is  an  inquiry  by  questionnaire  to  discover  how  supervisors  rate  and  aid 
teachers. 

Pittenger,  B.  F.  "Problems  of  teacher  measurement,"    Journal  of 

Educational  Psychology,  8:103-10,  February,  1917. 

This  article  points  out  the  limitations  of  score  cards  and  the  possibility  of 
error  in  using  them. 

[25] 


Wagner,  C.  A.  "Reducing  the  difficulties  in  rating  and  grading  of 
teachers,"  American  School  Board  Journal,  59:54-55,  November, 
1919. 

This  article   suggests  that   Boyce's   forty-five  points  be   so   divided  that  the 
person  rating  a  particular  point  is  the  person  knowing  most  about  it. 

Wagner,  C.  A.  "Some  difficulties  in  rating  and  grading  teachers," 

American  School  Board  Journal,  59:28,  September,  1919. 

This  is  an  optimistic  treatment  of  rating. 
Webb,  L.  W.  "One  element  to  be  considered  in  measuring  effective 

teaching,"  School  and  Society,  13:206-09,  February,  1921. 

A  questionnaire  on  method  of  studying  is  included. 


*Hi 


[26] 


